CRM-M-23174-2024 210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23174-2024 Date of Decision: 21.01.2025 Sagar @ Toy ...Peoner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta.on Sec.ons 235 28.09.2021 Mo Nagar, District Ludhiana 307, 326, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC 1. The peoner incarcerated in the FIR caponed above had come up before this Court under Secon 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail. 2. Vide order dated 14.05.2024, the peoner was granted interim bail/protecon, which connues to date. 3. The facts and allegaons are being taken from para 2 of the bail peon, which reads as follows: “Statement of Darshana Kaur @ Simran Wife of Randhir Singh Resident of Green City Village Bhukhari Kalan Police Sta on Jamalpur District Ludhiana, aged about 60 years, Mob: No: 78140-xxxxx stated that I am the resident of above said address and I am a housewife. I was married to Randhir Singh in the year 1986. I have two sons, the elder son is namely Sonu alias Kaka and the younger son is namely Parvinder Singh alias Sunny, both of them are married. I work with my younger daughter-in-law Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi regarding making tea, milk and ro etc. at the Suvidha center near D.S. Park Transport Nagar Ludhiana. We start our stall (costermonger) every morning around 10 AM and we used to close our stall (costermonger) at around 10:00 PM in the evening. On 26.09.2021 we both opened our stall as usual and due to high work load we got late then on 27.09.2021 the me 1 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-23174-2024 would be around 12:15 AM when I and my daughter-in-law Sukhwinder Kaur alias Sukho were about to close our stall (Costermonger) at our usual place i.e. place of occurrence i.e. backside Dhaba of Mahinder Near Dispensary Transport Nagar Ludhiana, then about 5-6 young men stopped my daughter-in-law Sukhwinder Kaur alias Sukho on the way, surrounded her and a=acked her with sharp weapons. Due to which they broke all the bones of my daughter-in-law's face including the Nasal bone and they had made her right eye completely disabled and many injuries were also inflicted on the thigh, regarding whom my daughter-in-law had told me earlier that To , Sanjay, Vicky Tanda and other uniden fied young persons' used to come and harass me at our stall and all these young persons, in connivance with each other, had caused injuries on her face, eye and on other body parts with sharp edged weapons and also extended threats to kill her. Due to the injuries being grievous, my daughter-in-law fell unconscious, then I called Gaurav son of Prashotam Lal resident of House No: 2650 Street No: 03, Mohalla Habibganj Police Sta on Division No: 02, near Civil Hospital Ludhiana, who arranged a ride and aDer making arrangements, my daughter-in-law was first admi=ed to Civil Hospital Ludhiana, who referred her to PGI Chandigarh aDer providing first aid. ADer we reached Chandigarh, but due to unavailability of bed at PGI Chandigarh, I and Gaurav again brought the pa ent Sukhwinder Kaur alias Sukho to CMC hospital Ludhiana where my daughter-in-law is undergoing treatment. Appropriate legal ac on should be taken against the above said To , Sanjay, Vicky Tunda and other uniden fied young persons. I have got recorded my statement today, heard and is accepted as correct.” 4. The peoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions. The peoner’s counsel argued that the custodial invesgaon would serve no purpose whatsoever and the pre-trial incarceraon would cause an irreversible injusce to the peoner and family. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following porons of the reply, which read as follows: “5. That during the course of further inves ga on, on 27.09.2021, the pe oner was arrested in the above noted FIR, who during interroga on confessed that he along with his accomplices had inflicted injuries on respondent no.2 and further the pe oner was duly iden fied by the 2 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-23174-2024 complainant as one of the accused, who had inflicted injuries on respondent no.2 and in this regard separate Iden fica on Memo was also prepared.” 7. Peoner’s counsel submits that the peoner had seled the maer with the complainant because the peoner was named as an accused under misconcepon. He has referred to affidavit given by the vicm, in which, she has explicitly menoned that she does not want to proceed against peoner -Sagar @ Toy. A perusal of the reply does not menon about the affidavit and contents. 8. On 14.05.2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim bail to peoner by observing as follows: “Contends, inter alia, that in view of affidavits dated 08.11.2021 and 27.03.2024 of vic m and respondent No. 2 respec vely, pe oner has no role in the present case.” 9. Although the evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecuon or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing the same for the bail stage. 10. The peoner was granted interim protecon, and during the interregnum, there is no allegaon that he had inmidated the witnesses, hampered the invesgaon, or, despite being called to join the invesgaon, did not appear before the invesgator. Given the above, there would be no jusficaon to disconnue the interim protecon, which is made absolute subject to the peoner complying with the terms of the bail order and the following addional condions. 11. Given the background of allegaons against the peoner, it becomes paramount to protect the complainant, witnesses, and members of society, and incapacitang the accused would be one of the primary opons unl the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquial. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restricon is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sancon]. Given the nature of the allegaons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the peoner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunion, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiKeen days from release from prison and inform the Invesgator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the peoner shall be entled to renew and take it back in case of acquial, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricng firearms would insll 3 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-23174-2024 confidence in the vicm(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeang the offense. 12. Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 13. Pe..on allowed in terms menoned above. Interim order dated 14.05.2024 is made absolute. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 21.01.2025 Jyo-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 4 JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.